linux-kernel - Re: general protection fault in show

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:36:07 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, security@...nel.org,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: general protection fault in show_timer

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:34:12PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Greg KH wrote:
> > >> Did this ever go anywhere?  I don't see it in Linus's tree yet...
> > >
> > > I learned yesterday that syzboz is understuffed and cannot test patches, so
> > > I need to find a minute to run the reproducer myself and verify that the
> > > patch is correct.
> > 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > Why do you say so? Have you tried to ask it to test?
> > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#communication-with-syzbot
> > What happened?
> 
> Eric explained that to me yesterday and I did not try yet. 
> 

Your patch definitely fixes the bug (I tested the C reproducers, you just need
to build a kernel with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y and CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS=y,
then run them).  The real question is whether the check being introduced is too
strict -- are there users passing in other values for ->sigev_notify that would
be broken?  That I can't really answer.

Eric